How many judgments cite ACIT v. Baldev Raj Charla?

61 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Baldev Raj Charla (121 TTJ 366), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Baldev Raj Charla come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 69A, Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 1961, Section 143(2).

ACIT v. Baldev Raj Charla

121 TTJ 366Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#1877 most cited

What is ACIT v. Baldev Raj Charla authority for?

An addition for unexplained cash deposits cannot be made solely based on a time gap between cash withdrawals and subsequent cash deposits. The Assessing Officer must establish that the withdrawn cash was utilized for other purposes or was not available with the assessee to reject the explanation.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Baldev Raj Charla · 121 TTJ 366 · cash withdrawal and deposit · time gap cash deposit · unexplained cash credit · Section 68 Income Tax Act · Section 69A Income Tax Act · addition on cash deposit · onus on Assessing Officer · proof of alternate use of cash

Sections most often in play

Section 69A Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 1961 Section 143(2)Section 68 Section 69

Issues it is cited on

section 158bc preponderance of probability section 69b section 115bb section 115b section 250(4)section 115bbe addition under section 68 live link stamp duty value section 145(3)unexplained money

Judgments citing ACIT v. Baldev Raj Charla

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), SUBHASH ROAD vs. WINDLASS CONSTRUCTIONS, RAJPUR ROAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 33/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Jcit (Osd) Vs Windlass Constructions Aaykar Bhawan, 53-R, Rajpur Road 13 A, Subhhash Road, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Aabfw4972E Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Varendra Kalra, Ca Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10687/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.10.2017, Declaring Loss Of Inr 4,61,33,210/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Various Reasons Where One Of The Reasons Was That Large Cash Was Deposited During Demonetization Period. The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Inr 2,40,32,000/- During The Demonetization Period For Which It Was Explained That The Immediate Source Was Out Of The Withdrawals Made Prior To The Deposits. Ao Observed That Cash Was Withdrawn For Business Activities & Were Spent & Therefore, The Source Of The Cash Remained Unexplained & Made The Addition U/S 69A As Unexplained Money & Invoked The Provision Of Section 115Bb Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…the Id.AO is set aside. 1. In the present case also, the learned assessing officer did not show that above cash was not available in the hands of the assessee or have been spent on any other purposes. Further the coordinate bench in ACIT vs Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) also held that merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and cash deposits explanation of the assessee could not be rejected and addition on account of cash deposit could not be made particularly when there was no finding recorded by the assessing officer or the Commissioner that apart from depositing this cash into b…

DY. CIT, INCOME TAX DEPTT. vs. NIVAYA RESOURCES PVT. LTD., GUJRAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 953/DEL/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2017] Dy. Cit, Aayakar Bhawan Vs. Nivaya Resources Pvt. Ltd. Haryana 211, World Trade Centre, Karnal Shamalkha Sayajigunj, Vadodra, Vadodra Gujarat 390020 Pan No.Aaica32981E Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.75/Del/2025 (In Ita No.953/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2017] Nivaya Resources Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Aayakar Bhawan 211, World Trade Centre, Haryana Shamalkha Sayajigunj, Karnal Vadodra, Vadodra Gujarat 390020 Pan No.Aaica32981E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 68

…de on inferences and presumptions which is bad in law." There is no evidence on record that the cash in hand was non-existent. The AO's belief is without any basis and founded on surmises & conjectures. 4.10. Likewise in the case of ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) also, it was held that merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and cash deposits explanation of the assessee could not be rejected and addition on account of cash deposit could not be made particularly when there was no finding recorded by the assessing officer or the Commissioner that apart from depositing this cas…

SUSHIL MITRUKA,DARJEELING vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals\nof the assessee are allowed

ITA 1630/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.2178, 1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17)\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Accpa9340F\Nita No. 1613/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2017-18)\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\Nshri Sk Tulsian, Ar\Nrevenue By\Nshri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr\Ndate Of Hearing:\N03.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N18.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Against\Nthe Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.08.2025, 27.05.2025 For A.Y.\N2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Appeals Are Relating\Nto Same Assessee & Involves Commons Issues, Therefore All These\Nappeals Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity.\Npage 2\Nita Nos.2178,1630,1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\Nsushil Mitruka; Ays 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18\Nfirst Of All We Shall Take Ita No. 2178/Kol/2025 A.Y. 214-15 For\Nadjudication.\Nα.Υ. 2014-15\Nita No. 2178/Kol/2025\N2.\Nthe Issue Raised In Ground No.1 Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A)\Nupholding The Reopening Of Assessment, Which Was Based Upon\Nborrowed Satisfaction Without Examining The Records & Without\Napplication Of Mind & Accordingly, The Reopening Of Assessment Bas\Nbad In Law.\N2.

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…onths\n6.\nCIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 201 CTR 54 (All)\n5-8 Months\n7.\nVeerappa Shetty ITA No.5276/M/2011\n3.5 Months\n8.\nAnupama Chaudhary ITA No. 4155/Del/2009\n3-6 Months\n9.\nTanmoy Chatterjee ITA No.1434/Kol/2009\n1 Month\n10.\nACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla, 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi)\n1-2 Months\n11.\nITA No.957/M/2009 M/s. Cellplus Telcomes\n09 Months\n21. The above judgments from various benches of the Tribunal as well as the Higher\ncourts suggest that the assessee can explain the cash deposit in the banks using the\ncash held by him for period longer than 2 years and there is no restraining provisions\nagainst suc…

IQBAL MAENUDDIN SHAIKH,MUMBBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD22(1)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 5584/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ShriIqbal Maennuddin ShaikhFor Respondent: Shri Veerabhadra S Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

…r of that cash. The A.O. ignored the fact that there was withdrawals from saving A/cs. also. The appellant has relied on the decision of ITAT Delhi in case of Deepali Sehgal, Meerut Vs. Department of Income tax ITA No.5660/Del/2012, ACIT Vs. Baldev Raj Chalra 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) 2009, R.K. Dave Vs. ITO 94/ITJ Jodhpur 19(09/08/2004) and Hemant Prabhakar Vs. DCIT 31 Tax world 198 (JP). The A.O. had already agreed about nature of business of assessee is trading in garments i.e. he buys garments from open market and sells them. Also the presumptive taxation u/s. 44AD inserted by Finance Act, 2012 can be availed by al…

DAVINDER SINGH BHULLAR,KAPURTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAPURTHALA

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 587/ASR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH(PHYSICAL), AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. MITHA LALMEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 587/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Davinder Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 4, Begowal, Ward-1, Kapurthala Kapurthala -144621. Punjab. PAN No. AXBPB4216D. (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Shri Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.09.025 Date of Pronouncement jO . // .2025 ORDER Per: DR. M.L. Meena, AM.: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order…

SANT LAL AGGARWAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

ITA 2243/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessmentyear:2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…dverse inference can be drawn against the assessee without any adverse material. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i. Smt. Saroj Sirselewalavs. ITO reported in [1993] 45 TT) 701 (JP) ii. ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla reported in [2009] 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) iii. Muon Computing P. Ltd. vs. ITO [ITA No. 7606/Del/2019 dated 04/08/2021] iv. Smt. Veena Awasthi, ITA No. 215/LKW/2016 dated 30/11/2018 v.R.K. Dave v/s ITO reported in 94 TT) 19 10. The appellant seeks to place reliance on the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Shri. Vipin Aggarwal vs. ITO (ITA NO. 2571/Del/2018 dated 19.02…

VYANKATESH NARAYAN KULKARNI,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 3(4), THANE

In the result, this ground of appeal is

ITA 1850/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni Ito, Ward – 3(4), Thane 301, Sunflower Tower, Kharkar Ali Road, Vs Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road Parvati Bhavan, Thane West, No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Mumbai-400604. Estate, Thane West -400604, [Pan No. Agmpk6406E] Maharashtra. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 69A

…following decisions:  Ajit BapuSatam vs DCIT (147 taxmann.com 222) (Mumbai – Trib),,  Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thaker vs ITO (44 ITR (T) 135) (Ahmedabad -Trib),  ACIT vs Mukesh Shah (171 taxmann.com 304) (Jodhpur – Trib),  ACIT vs Baldev Raj Charla and Ors. (121 TTJ 366) (Delhi – Trib) 7. On the other hand, ld. Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 8. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and gone through the orders of lower authorities. I find that right from the beginning, the stand of assessee is that cash deposit dur…

GURJEET SINGH C/O MANGAT FILLING STATION RAHON ROAD, MACHHIWARA DISTRICT LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 KHANNA JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 KHANNA DISTRICT LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1188/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1188/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gurjeet Singh, The Ito, C/O Mangat Filling Station, बनाम Ward-1, Rahon Road, Khanna Vs. Machhiwara, Distt. Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Ajsps9042H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 69A

…by the assessee elsewhere and there was time gap in cash withdrawals and cash deposits.  Shiv Charan Dass Vs CIT, reported in 126 ITR 263 (P&H HC)  ITO vs Ashok Kumar Jain (ITA No. 180/Chd/2013, dated 3.11.15 (Chandigarh Bench)  ACIT vs Baldev Raj Chawla 121 TTJ 366 (DEL)  Gordhan Vs ITO,ITA No. 811/Del/2015, order dated 19.10.2015 (Delhi Bench)  ITO vs Mrs. Deepali Sehgal, ITA No. 5660/Del/2012, dt. 5.9.2024 (Delhi Bench)  Ravinder Singh Negi vs DCIT, ITA Nos. 811 & 812/2014 (Chandigarh Bench)  ACIT vs Sh. Joginder Paul, ITA No. 734/Chd/2014, dt. 12.1.2025 (Chandigarh Bench) 1188-Chd-2024 Gurjeet Sin…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), JAIPUR, HIGHCOURT CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. LATE VANDANA AGARWAL THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. NISHIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1237/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…evidence, nothing has been brought on record to discredit the contentions and material placed by the appellant in support of the cash deposited in the bank account. The appellant has placed reliance on some case laws as under: ACIT v. Baldev Raj Chakra (2009) 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) x x x x Balijit Singh vs. ITO (2019) 178 ITD 12 (Chd.) x x x x Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thanker vs. ITO (2017) 88 taxmann.com 382 (Ahd.) x x x x Jaspal Singh Sehgal vs. ITO (2017) 83 taxmann.com 246 (Mumbai) x x x x 22.1 Appellant in his latest reply has relied on the case of Delhi ITAT in case of Laxmi Narain Vs ITO ITA-195/Del/2023 or…

SINGAPALLI RAJGOPAL RAO ,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(8), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 111/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Singapalli Rajgopal Rao Income Tax Officer 34/A Sundernagar, Udhna- Vs. Ward No.3(2)(8), Surat Navsari Road, Bhestan, Surat- 395 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abtpr 0192 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Tinish Mody, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal Instituted On 27/01/2025 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month through her sewing/stitching activities. The Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the cases of (i) CIT vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 ITA No.111/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Singapalli R Rao (Del) (ii) ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla (2009) 121 TTJ 366 (Del-Trib.), (iii) Shri Rakesh Suryakant Agarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai ITA No.709/Mum/2012) and (iv) DCIT vs. Smt. Veena Awasthy (2006) 282 ITR 249 (Del). 5. On the other hand, Ld. SR-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. She submitted that both of them have passed detailed orders after considering the explanation and detai…

KIRANLATA AGAMPRASAD AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 773/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyand Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

…this cash available with assessee was invested or utilized for any other purpose, it was not open to Authority to make addition on basis that assessee failed to explain source of deposits in favour of assessee. Again in the case of ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi), the ITAT Delhi Bench held that where there were sufficient cash withdrawals to cover cash deposits in question, merely because there was time gap between withdrawal of cash and cash deposits, explanation of assessee could not be rejected and addition on account of cash deposit could not be made. 10. Accordingly, looking into the instant…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. PHOOLA RANI CHADHA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3480/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

…eeta Breja (ITA No.524/Del/2017) held that assessing officer or the learned CIT (A) did not show that above cash was not available in the hands of the assessee or have been spent on any other purposes. Further the coordinate bench in ACIT vs Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) also held that merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and cash deposits explanation of the assessee could not be rejected and addition on account of cash deposit could not be made particularly when there was no finding recorded by the assessing officer or the Commissioner that apart from depositing this cash into b…

PHOOLA RANI CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 30(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3469/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

PIYUSH SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 855/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshipiyush Sharma, Income Tax Officer, बना B 03, Nikhil Bunglows, 2(3), म/ Phase Iii, Bhopal Vs. Near Vrindavan Garden, Hoshngabad, Bhopal (Pan: Aiupp4609A) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

…a (2014) 108 DTR 0265 wherein the court has agreed to the proposition that cash deposited out of income and withdrawals made from the bank account was correctly accepted as explained. The Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Buldev Raj Charla & Othrs (2009) 121 TTJ 366 and the Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Saurin Nandkumar Shodhan vs ITO in ITA No 2075 /Ahd/ 2012 in its decision dated 30.04.2013 held that "if revenue has not established that cash available was utilized elsewhere than on basis of preponderance of probabilities, it can be assumed that that very cash was re deposited in bank". Similar fi…

TATYASAHEB NARAYAN LAGAD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1587/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Tatyasaheb Narayan Lagad Ito, Ward 6(2), Pune B-504, Crossover Country, Sinhagad Vs. Road, Wadgaon Khurd, Pune – 411041 Pan: Acypl2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe

Section 143(2)Section 69A

…ITA No.524/Del/2017, order dated 25.11.2019 d. Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Co. Pvt. Limited Vs. DCIT (2020) Tax Corp (DT) 82042 (HC-MADRAS) e. Kamlesh Kantilal Bhandari Vs ITO vide ITA No.1320/PUN/2016 order dated 29.07.2016 f. ACIT Vs Baldev Raj Charla (2009) 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) g. DCIT Vs. Karthik Construction Co. vide ITA No.2292/Mum/2016 order dated 23.02.2018 h. Smt. Teena Bethala vs. ITO vide ITA No.1383 and 1384/Bang/2019, order dated 28.08.2019 12. So far as the decisions relied on by the Assessing Officer are concerned, he submitted that those decisions are distinguishable and are not applicable to the f…

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

…- “12. In the present case also the learned assessing officer or the learned CIT A did not show that above cash was not available in the hands of the assessee or have been spent on any other purposes. Further the coordinate bench in ACIT vs Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) also held that merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and cash deposits explanation of the assessee could not be rejected and addition on account of cash deposit could not be made particularly when there was no finding recorded by the assessing officer or the Commissioner that apart from depositing this cash into b…

AJAY DATA,ALWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1183/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 250Section 69A

…:- “12. In the present case also the learned assessing officer or the learned CIT A did not show that above cash was not available in the hands of the assessee or have been spent on any other purposes. Further the coordinate bench in ACIT vsBaldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) also held that merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and cash deposits explanation of the assessee could not be rejected and addition on account of cash deposit could not be made particularly when there was no finding recorded by the assessing officer or the Commissioner that apart from depositing this cash into b…

KHOOBSOORAT FABRICS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 428/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 68

…nvalid and unsustainable. The assessee seeks to place reliance on the following judgments: i) 291 ITR 36 (Del.) CIT vs. Kulwant Rai (extract at pages 164-165 of Paper Book) ii) 302 CTR 241 (Del) Jaya Agarwal v ITO (extract at pages 165-166 of Paper Book) iii) 121 TTJ 366 (Del.) ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla & Ors (extract at pages 166 of Paper Book) It may be stated here that the aforesaid conclusion was accepted by the revenue and not challenged before the High Court as would be evident from the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla reported in 334 ITR 129 (Del) iv) 127 ITR 807 (Kar) S.R. Venkata Ratnam…

RAKESH SARDANA,KARNAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, KARNAL, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1564/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: the ld. CIT (A) and raised several grounds of appeal and in response to notices by the ld. CIT (A), assessee has filed submissions which were not filed before the AO. Accordingly, a remand report was called for from the AO on 16.11.2023 and no response from the AO side. With regard to issue raised by the assessee i.e. assessment is bad in law, the assessee has submitted before the ld. CIT (A) that assessee has regularly filed return of income with ITO, Ward 5, Karnal and the notices of asse

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rakesh Sardana, vs. ITO, Ward 5, H.No.509, Jarnailly Colony, Karnal. Karnal – 132 001 (Haryana). (PAN : APQPS4520Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Shri Shrey Jain, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date of Order : 30.08.2024 ORDER The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 21.02.2024 for the…

SH. SANJAY GODHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Arises Because The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before Him Against The Order Dated 20/11/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Circle-01, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Showing 1–20 of 61 · Page 1 of 4